DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Forums - Discs & Movies - MPAA to revise ratings.

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Intergalactic Ponce wrote: Directly or indirectly, they still censor though. And they censor in the worst way by holding a gun to the film makers head.

MPAA 'Put this shot in your film and we'll slap it with an NC17 and then no one will see it'

Mr Director 'Mmm. Can I afford to p*ss away a small fortune for the sake of a few frames? The answer to that depends on the filmaker of course but it's still back door censorship.

How did it come about that the MPAA got theatre owners in their back pocket. If mainstream theatres grew some balls and showed NC17 films then none of this would be an issue. It would force the MPAA to come up with a more realistic solution.

Which, because of industry pressure and the film 'This film is not yet rated' they seem to be doing.

Actually, you seem to be under a wrong impression. The MPAA is still voluntary. No one forces any film maker to get their films rated at all. Though rare, you will still see an occasional film released in theaters with no rating at all.

Intergalactic Ponce wrote: How did it come about that the MPAA got theatre owners in their back pocket.

When all the theatres were closed down, and one mega-plex (here it's Famous Players) with family friendly standards took over. "NC-17? Not friendly for everyone, we would lose money! Let's just not carry those, agreed?"

Directly or indirectly, they still censor though. And they censor in the worst way by holding a gun to the film makers head.

MPAA 'Put this shot in your film and we'll slap it with an NC17 and then no one will see it'

Mr Director 'Mmm. Can I afford to p*ss away a small fortune for the sake of a few frames? The answer to that depends on the filmaker of course but it's still back door censorship.

How did it come about that the MPAA got theatre owners in their back pocket. If mainstream theatres grew some balls and showed NC17 films then none of this would be an issue. It would force the MPAA to come up with a more realistic solution.

Which, because of industry pressure and the film 'This film is not yet rated' they seem to be doing.

scottmck wrote: Sounds like a good idea. The BBFC in the UK has become a lot more progressive over the last few years. It's more of an advisory service now rather than a big bad censor. That makes more sense to me - let anyone see what they want but give them plenty of warnings before they do.

The MPAA is not a censor, it is just an advisory board. They have no power to force any film maker to make cuts to their films. It's all about economics that force film makers to strive for certain ratings.

How about they sc**p NC-17 and make are just that - No one under 17 gets in - ta da! PG-13 applies to everyone 13, 14, 15 and 16 - thats how it works here under the canadian rating system. I still remember being 17 and not being able to get into see Face/Off because it was rated 18A. Still, the ratings worked and went to see Lost World instead.

WOW. This is great news. It's incredible that the MPAA is actually recognizing and making changes in response to that particular documentary. What they really should do is get rid of the NC-17, because no one releases films with that rating anymore anyway (it would just get released Unrated), and create a new rating between PG-13 and R. I know I'm being waaaaay to brief, but the general consensus is that the mid-point between PG-13 and are is necessary.

This thread has just reminded me of something that happened when I went to see Borat (rated 15). A bloke in front of us was trying to take his two kids in to see Borat and the woman at the box office asked him how old his kids were. He said they were 12 so obviously she didn't let them in. Then he started to kick up a fuss saying that 12 year-old kids are usually allowed into 15 movies, when that's never been the case. To be honest I was very surprised that either: 1. He didn't know that already 2. He didn't just say his kids were 15

Now, I realise this is a bit of a grey area for the US with are ratings but it's pretty clear-cut in the UK. Not 15? Game over: you're not getting in.

Well we have a better system north of the border: G, PG, 14+, 16+ 18+ and "R" (which is really NC-17). And to boot, PG here is PG-13 down there. Anything rated "R" in the USA is 14+ here, very rarely is 18+ used, mostly for violence/gore. I don't think I've even seen an are in Canada...

The 'R' does strike me as a very weak rating. Looking at the descriptions 'PG-13' basically says not suitable for under 13s, whilst 'R' says suitable for all (provided there's an adult). 'R' would be better as a 15 or 16 version of 'PG-13'.

Well the MPAA needs to improve how they rate movies! I still think if a movie is rated "R" The "R" rating should be like this NO ONE UNDER 17 Admitted without parent or legal guardian. But they need to add No admission to anyone under 10

I guess it's a given that context will be taken into account as well as content when citing other scenes. That's still a good idea though - it's like citing a precedent in law. For example, if another filmmaker wants a woman to flash her bits for a split second in an adult thriller, they would cite Basic Instinct but they wouldn't cite the fact that the female skunk in Pepe le Pew didn't wear any clothes.

Doesn't one aspect of that seem bizarre. Citing another film when appealling a severe rating. Would that mean you could use a Tom and Jerry cartoon as evidence to support your film if it had say, someone flame throwering someone else's head or slicing them in two?

Surely, context is everything in these cases isn't it. Just for the record, I'm not pro censorship.

Sounds like a good idea. The BBFC in the UK has become a lot more progressive over the last few years. It's more of an advisory service now rather than a big bad censor. That makes more sense to me - let anyone see what they want but give them plenty of warnings before they do.

The Motion Picture Association of America, always resistant to changes to its movie ratings system under its previous chief, Jack Valenti, is now planning to make some key alterations to the system, Daily Variety reported today (Wednesday). The trade paper said that the MPAA will now warn parents that some R-rated movies are not suitable for younger people -- whether or not they are accompanied by an adult. Another change will allow a filmmaker to cite scenes in another movie when appealing a severe rating. In an interview with Variety Dan Glickman, who succeed Valenti in 2004, said that the organization had been influenced by criticism of its ratings system presented in the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which debuted at the Sundance film festival last year. Glickman plans to discuss the new revisions of the ratings rules with independent filmmakers attending this year's Sundance festival, which gets underway on Monday, Variety said.